Yeah, pretty much sums it your point of view in a nutshell.
The above clip depicts the type of crap the liberal media has been pulling, but more importantly watch the next video. Where is the media in regard to the next video? Everyone says that if Zimmerman was black he would have been arrested right away, but as you can see from the below clip that is a lie.
A mentally handicapped white/Hispanic man was murdered by a black man at a Taco Bell restaurant. Police have refused to arrest the killer because he claimed that the shooting was self-defense. However, no weapons were found on the victim.
Police said a 22-year-old man and a female passenger had ordered food in the drive-thru lane of a Taco Bell restaurant and as they were pulling up to the window, a man walking his dog stepped around a blind corner into the lane. The driver quickly stopped and exchanged words with the man, later identified as Daniel Adkins. They got into an altercation and the driver shot Adkins one time, according to Phoenix police Sgt. Tommy Thompson. Adkins was pronounced dead at the scene.
The driver remained at the scene. He and his passenger said Adkins had a bat or some other type of weapon that he swung at them. The driver told police he felt threatened. Detectives were unable to locate a bat or similar item. However, a witness told investigators that Adkins did swing his fist in the direction of the driver several times.
There are inconsistencies in this black mans story, but there are none in Zimmerman's, and yet because he claimed self-defense he hasn't been arrested. It is also unclear whether or not the shooter had a permit to carry a concealed weapon in the phoenix case since it's not getting much coverage.
- He has a history of violence
- He said he was going to go after Trayvon
- He wanted to be a cop and had an obvious viigilant complex
- I mean come the ******** on, "These ******** always get away."
Wow, you are obviously biased. I started factual evidence
No, you just accused people of bias. I mean case in point.
Quote:
and you offer nothing but your speculation. Did you even bother to read the evidence before you decided to put your foot in your mouth and begin chewing?"
I don't think you know what some of these words mean. Nothing in the above is speculative.
Vercingetorix VII
Reasons to believe Trayvon attacked Zimmerman:
- The guy who would be facing a certain conviction on second degree murder if he said otherwise says he did.
There is simply no believable reason to say that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman unless you're playing to latent and (mostly) unspoken fears of young black men.
Again, I cited factual evidence that proved that Trayvon turned around and went back to confront Zimmerman
No, you didn't. You asserted this based on the fact that the altercation took place in the middle of the grounds. But this can only be true if Zimmerman was pursuing Trayvon on foot. Since we know based on all the evidence that he did this, we can either believe that, without reason, he had a sudden change of heart and was then randomly attacked, again without reason, by Trayvon Martin; or we can assume that he did what he told the 9/11 operator he was going to do and went after this kid and began the fight.
Quote:
Also there was an eye-witness that saw Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman and Zimmerman begging for help
First of all this isn't a named witness, and there was testimony of cops manipulating witness testimony at the scene of the crime. We've already gone over the problems with the voice analysis.
Second of all, if Zimmerman went after Trayvon and Trayvon knocked him to the ground and hit him, it wouldn't be assault; it would be, you know, self-defense. Of the actual case, where you are defending yourself against attack. Not the false case where you begin a fight, lose, and then pull out a gun and shoot the other guy.
Quote:
and I prefer not to sully the name of the dead, but Trayvon was not the innocent kid the media and race-baiters have made him out as.
You clearly do want to, so cut the pretense and trot out your character evidence, since we already have plenty on Zimmerman's unstable state of mind.
No, you didn't. You asserted this based on the fact that the altercation took place in the middle of the grounds. But this can only be true if Zimmerman was pursuing Trayvon on foot. Since we know based on all the evidence that he did this, we can either believe that, without reason, he had a sudden change of heart and was then randomly attacked, again without reason, by Trayvon Martin; or we can assume that he did what he told the 9/11 operator he was going to do and went after this kid and began the fight.
I stated facts, I demonstrated that Zimmerman stopped chasing Trayvon Martin for at least 90 seconds which is factually recorded on the 911 call, giving Trayvon adequate time to get home, but instead he called his girlfriend and he turned around to go back to George Zimmerman. I demonstrated that the only logical way that Trayvon could have been where he was shot at the time he was shot is if he turned around and came back, otherwise he would have made it home safely and we never would have heard of any of this.
Vercingetorix VII
First of all this isn't a named witness, and there was testimony of cops manipulating witness testimony at the scene of the crime. We've already gone over the problems with the voice analysis.
Second of all, if Zimmerman went after Trayvon and Trayvon knocked him to the ground and hit him, it wouldn't be assault; it would be, you know, self-defense. Of the actual case, where you are defending yourself against attack. Not the false case where you begin a fight, lose, and then pull out a gun and shoot the other guy.
The evidence shows that Trayvon had to turn around and go back because there was 90 seconds where Zimmerman was not following Trayvon at all. Self-defense cannot be claimed if a normal , rational person had no reason to believe she/he was in danger of death or great bodily harm in the 60 seconds prior to an incident. Since Trayvon got away and more then 90 seconds past Trayvon no longer had any grounds for self-defense. The law is written that way so that a person whose beat up can't get up after the beating, go get a weapon, and kill the attacker who is no longer a threat.
In the eyes of the law, Zimmerman ceased to be a threat after 60 seconds past.
Vercingetorix VII
You clearly do want to, so cut the pretense and trot out your character evidence, since we already have plenty on Zimmerman's unstable state of mind.
Fine, Trayvon's brother posted on his twitter page about Trayvon punching a bus driver, on Trayvon's youtube page he has videos of fighting going on at his school, and most damning of all his facebook page had credible evidence which indicated that Trayvon Martin was a drug dealer.
No, you didn't. You asserted this based on the fact that the altercation took place in the middle of the grounds. But this can only be true if Zimmerman was pursuing Trayvon on foot. Since we know based on all the evidence that he did this, we can either believe that, without reason, he had a sudden change of heart and was then randomly attacked, again without reason, by Trayvon Martin; or we can assume that he did what he told the 9/11 operator he was going to do and went after this kid and began the fight.
I stated facts, I demonstrated
Hold the ******** on.
No.
You stated some facts and then built conjecture on that. Stop acting as if we should take your theories as fact. It's quite evident that people find them unconvincing. You'd do well to address that instead of acting like all you need do is repeat yourself enough times.
Quote:
that Zimmerman stopped chasing Trayvon Martin for at least 90 seconds which is factually recorded on the 911 call, giving Trayvon adequate time to get home, but instead he called his girlfriend and he turned around to go back to George Zimmerman.
Even if he had adequate time to get home- and I'm not taking that as a given- that he would stop to talk to someone on his phone is no evidence that he attacked Zimmerman. It is still far more likely that the man who said he was going to go after the other began the altercation, than someone who was merely walking home and talking on the phone.
Quote:
I demonstrated that the only logical way that Trayvon could have been where he was shot at the time he was shot is if he turned around and came back, otherwise he would have made it home safely and we never would have heard of any of this.
No, you claimed this. It was stupid then and it's stupid now. If he stopped to talk on his phone he could have been anywhere when Zimmerman came up to him and began the altercation.
Quote:
Vercingetorix VII
First of all this isn't a named witness, and there was testimony of cops manipulating witness testimony at the scene of the crime. We've already gone over the problems with the voice analysis.
Second of all, if Zimmerman went after Trayvon and Trayvon knocked him to the ground and hit him, it wouldn't be assault; it would be, you know, self-defense. Of the actual case, where you are defending yourself against attack. Not the false case where you begin a fight, lose, and then pull out a gun and shoot the other guy.
The evidence shows that Trayvon had to turn around and go back because there was 90 seconds where Zimmerman was not following Trayvon at all.
Gone over why this is dumb conjecture on your part.
Quote:
Self-defense cannot be claimed if a normal , rational person had no reason to believe she/he was in danger of death or great bodily harm in the 60 seconds prior to an incident.
The sixty seconds thing is something you have completely made up.
You're trying to draw a lot of evidence from fairly small differences in time that are built on hearsay and conjecture. You have no idea what people were doing and how they were using that time, so this is baseless speculation meant to deflect the most obvious and logical conclusion, which is that Zimmerman began the altercation he said he was going to begin, and not that Martin randomly attacked a stranger for no reason.
Quote:
The law is written that way so that a person whose beat up can't get up after the beating, go get a weapon, and kill the attacker who is no longer a threat.
Given how utterly ******** removing the duty to retreat is, and how it utterly ******** self-defense as a concept under the common law, I'm not sure of this. And since it didn't happen anyway, at least on Martin's part, it's irrelevant anyway. He beat up (allegedly) the guy who stalked him and started an altercation. That's clear cut self-defense.
Also, who's.
Quote:
In the eyes of the law, Zimmerman ceased to be a threat after 60 seconds past.
Again, this is you making things up. There isn't a time limit to these things; it's based on a reasonableness of the immediacy of the threat. The very fact that you think that things are closely timed like this in a tense altercation reveals how little you really understand.
Quote:
Vercingetorix VII
You clearly do want to, so cut the pretense and trot out your character evidence, since we already have plenty on Zimmerman's unstable state of mind.
Fine, Trayvon's brother posted on his twitter page about Trayvon punching a bus driver, on Trayvon's youtube page he has videos of fighting going on at his school, and most damning of all his facebook page had credible evidence which indicated that Trayvon Martin was a drug dealer.
I find it interesting that you make a point of arguing that the kid should have ran away instead of talking on the phone.You concede that Zimmerman was indeed a very dangerous man in doing so.
So since you're so hung up about so-called self-defense law, why not ask the obvious question: who laid hands on who first? I'd say the guy with the concealed gun chasing down the kid after 911 dispatch told him not to is most likely the guy.
But what do I know? The police didn't do their job at all.
No, you didn't. You asserted this based on the fact that the altercation took place in the middle of the grounds. But this can only be true if Zimmerman was pursuing Trayvon on foot. Since we know based on all the evidence that he did this, we can either believe that, without reason, he had a sudden change of heart and was then randomly attacked, again without reason, by Trayvon Martin; or we can assume that he did what he told the 9/11 operator he was going to do and went after this kid and began the fight.
I stated facts, I demonstrated
Hold the ******** on.
No.
You stated some facts and then built conjecture on that. Stop acting as if we should take your theories as fact. It's quite evident that people find them unconvincing. You'd do well to address that instead of acting like all you need do is repeat yourself enough times.
I analyzed all the evidence without bias and came to the most logical conclusion
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
that Zimmerman stopped chasing Trayvon Martin for at least 90 seconds which is factually recorded on the 911 call, giving Trayvon adequate time to get home, but instead he called his girlfriend and he turned around to go back to George Zimmerman.
Even if he had adequate time to get home- and I'm not taking that as a given- that he would stop to talk to someone on his phone is no evidence that he attacked Zimmerman. It is still far more likely that the man who said he was going to go after the other began the altercation, than someone who was merely walking home and talking on the phone.
It might not be evidence that he through the first punch or whatnot, but it is clear that Trayvon turned around and went back to Zimmerman rather then going home. It does give Zimmerman's version of events credibility and raises plenty of reasonable doubt.
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
I demonstrated that the only logical way that Trayvon could have been where he was shot at the time he was shot is if he turned around and came back, otherwise he would have made it home safely and we never would have heard of any of this.
No, you claimed this. It was stupid then and it's stupid now. If he stopped to talk on his phone he could have been anywhere when Zimmerman came up to him and began the altercation.
Again, Trayvon didn't call his girlfriend until after he got away from Zimmerman, so he would have been closer to his house then to where he died. He probably stopped right outside his door or pretty close to it, meaning he had to backtrack to get to where he was shot.
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
Vercingetorix VII
First of all this isn't a named witness, and there was testimony of cops manipulating witness testimony at the scene of the crime. We've already gone over the problems with the voice analysis.
Second of all, if Zimmerman went after Trayvon and Trayvon knocked him to the ground and hit him, it wouldn't be assault; it would be, you know, self-defense. Of the actual case, where you are defending yourself against attack. Not the false case where you begin a fight, lose, and then pull out a gun and shoot the other guy.
The evidence shows that Trayvon had to turn around and go back because there was 90 seconds where Zimmerman was not following Trayvon at all.
Gone over why this is dumb conjecture on your part.
Since we know Trayvon got away and we know he came back, there is no way to prove that Trayvon wasn't the aggressor, that's just conjecture on your part
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
Self-defense cannot be claimed if a normal , rational person had no reason to believe she/he was in danger of death or great bodily harm in the 60 seconds prior to an incident.
The sixty seconds thing is something you have completely made up.
You're trying to draw a lot of evidence from fairly small differences in time that are built on hearsay and conjecture. You have no idea what people were doing and how they were using that time, so this is baseless speculation meant to deflect the most obvious and logical conclusion, which is that Zimmerman began the altercation he said he was going to begin, and not that Martin randomly attacked a stranger for no reason.
You think you know the law better then Alan Dershowitz, a Professor of Law at Harvard University? It is he that mentioned the 60 second rule on CNN, so that 90 seconds Zimmerman was on the phone clearly means he was not the aggressor when Trayvon came back and assaulted him.
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
The law is written that way so that a person whose beat up can't get up after the beating, go get a weapon, and kill the attacker who is no longer a threat.
Given how utterly ******** removing the duty to retreat is, and how it utterly ******** self-defense as a concept under the common law, I'm not sure of this. And since it didn't happen anyway, at least on Martin's part, it's irrelevant anyway. He beat up (allegedly) the guy who stalked him and started an altercation. That's clear cut self-defense.
Also, who's.
Again, Zimmerman followed Trayvon at one point, but he stopped following for longer then 60 seconds before Trayvon came back and apparently began assaulting Zimmerman.
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
In the eyes of the law, Zimmerman ceased to be a threat after 60 seconds past.
Again, this is you making things up. There isn't a time limit to these things; it's based on a reasonableness of the immediacy of the threat. The very fact that you think that things are closely timed like this in a tense altercation reveals how little you really understand.
I didn't make up the 60 second rule, Alan Dershowitz mentioned, a Professor of Law at Harvard, mentioned it on CNN.
Apart from Zimmerman's story, the facts in this case that can be corroborated by the evidence and by the witness 'John' is that Zimmerman stopped following Trayyvon and talked to the dipatcher, and then approximately 2 minites later the fist 911 call came in, and the witness saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, beating on him, and Zimmerman was yelling for help,
In order to convict Zimmerman of anything, they'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman resumed chasing Trayvon after he hung up the phone, but how can they prove that when Trayvon went back?
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
Vercingetorix VII
You clearly do want to, so cut the pretense and trot out your character evidence, since we already have plenty on Zimmerman's unstable state of mind.
Fine, Trayvon's brother posted on his twitter page about Trayvon punching a bus driver, on Trayvon's youtube page he has videos of fighting going on at his school, and most damning of all his facebook page had credible evidence which indicated that Trayvon Martin was a drug dealer.
So Trayvon was no saint.
Citation, please.
Trayvon's Twitter Accounts are T33ZY TAUGHT M3 and NO_LIMIT_NIGGA. I haven't read all the treets, but one of the last tweets he got from his brother on his NO_LIMIT_NIGGA account was asking about why Trayvon hadn't told him about how Trayvon had apparently punched a bus driver. The account NO_LIMIT_NIGGA has since been removed, but not before people copied the tweets, so they are available for download if you want to look.
Similar to the Twitter account, Trayvon's youtube account has subsequently been deleted too, but not before some of his stuff was downloaded and reuploaded, including this:
Anyway, his character is certainly questionable.
Vercingetorix VII
Kasumi of Vientown
Relevance, please.
Because without relevance this looks like race-baiting.
Not race-baiting. I posted this video to make people think. Everything that is happening in this case is eerily almost exactly like what happened in the Duke Lacrosse case, with the rush to judgment and everything. A lot of people are thinking Trayvon's like some sort of saint or something, so Zimmerman must be guilty and who cares about the evidence?
I don't know how old you are or if you were paying attention at the time of that case, but lotts of whackjobs were making the evidence sound a lot more conclusive then it was and they were so sure of those boys' guilt, and they were so sure that anyone that disagreed with them was a racist. How is that any different then what is happening now? The answer is it's not.
Omnileech
I find it interesting that you make a point of arguing that the kid should have ran away instead of talking on the phone.You concede that Zimmerman was indeed a very dangerous man in doing so.
So since you're so hung up about so-called self-defense law, why not ask the obvious question: who laid hands on who first? I'd say the guy with the concealed gun chasing down the kid after 911 dispatch told him not to is most likely the guy.
But what do I know? The police didn't do their job at all.
By almost any standard, Zimmerman’s legal defense in the Trayvon Martin shooting case has been a sort of ongoing cautionary tale for exactly what not to do if you’re facing potentially serious criminal charges.
Almost immediately, within around thirty-seven minutes after the shooting, Zimmerman was already waiving his right to an attorney. He then proceeded to interview with the police for five hours without any legal representation present.
Then the next day, still without any attorney present or legal advice, Zimmerman took the police back to the scene of the shooting at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, and reenacted what happened on the evening of February 26th with them, step-by-step on video.
Had Zimmerman’s narrative and recounting of the details of that evening been any less than 100% consistent, that’s the moment when everything would have fallen apart for him — sometime right around February 27th. The police had every reason and opportunity to document and doggedly pursue any differences they saw between Zimmerman’s initial interview and his video re-enactment the following day.
Rather than finding anything they could follow up with, what happened instead? The Sanford Police Department was unable to obtain any evidence that would allow them to press even involuntary manslaughter charges against Zimmerman. And no new evidence changed that, even as days and weeks passed.
And just to show that skin color was not a factor, watch this vireo:
A mentally handicapped white/Hispanic man was murdered by a black man at a Taco Bell restaurant. Police have refused to arrest the killer because he claimed that the shooting was self-defense. However, no weapons were found on the victim.
Police said a 22-year-old man and a female passenger had ordered food in the drive-thru lane of a Taco Bell restaurant and as they were pulling up to the window, a man walking his dog stepped around a blind corner into the lane. The driver quickly stopped and exchanged words with the man, later identified as Daniel Adkins. They got into an altercation and the driver shot Adkins one time, according to Phoenix police Sgt. Tommy Thompson. Adkins was pronounced dead at the scene.
The driver remained at the scene. He and his passenger said Adkins had a bat or some other type of weapon that he swung at them. The driver told police he felt threatened. Detectives were unable to locate a bat or similar item. However, a witness told investigators that Adkins did swing his fist in the direction of the driver several times.
In this case the shooter had no serious injuries and he lied and said that the mentally handicapped victim was armed when there was no weapon recovered. I don't think that any reasonable person would feel threatened enough to necessitate shooting a guy who hasn't laid a hand on them, but due to the statement of self-defense they let him go pending an investigation.
most any standard, Zimmerman’s legal defense in the Trayvon Martin shooting case has been a sort of ongoing cautionary tale for exactly what not to do if you’re facing potentially serious criminal charges.
Almost immediately, within around thirty-seven minutes after the shooting, Zimmerman was already waiving his right to an attorney. He then proceeded to interview with the police for five hours without any legal representation present.
Which proves that Zimmerman is an idiot. Nothing more.
Quote:
Then the next day, still without any attorney present or legal advice, Zimmerman took the police back to the scene of the shooting at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, and reenacted what happened on the evening of February 26th with them, step-by-step on video.
Which is meaningless. Zimmerman shot and killed someone. he has every motivation to lie.
Quote:
Had Zimmerman’s narrative and recounting of the details of that evening been any less than 100% consistent, that’s the moment when everything would have fallen apart for him — sometime right around February 27th. The police had every reason and opportunity to document and doggedly pursue any differences they saw between Zimmerman’s initial interview and his video re-enactment the following day.
Quote:
Had Zimmerman’s narrative and recounting of the details of that evening been any less than 100% consistent, that’s the moment when everything would have fallen apart for him — sometime right around February 27th. The police had every reason and opportunity to document and doggedly pursue any differences they saw between Zimmerman’s initial interview and his video re-enactment the following day.
The police neglected to do their job from the beginning upon arriving at th crime scene. The fact that they didn't try to get their act together until they were in the spotlight is irrelevant.
Quote:
Rather than finding anything they could follow up with, what happened instead? The Sanford Police Department was unable to obtain any evidence that would allow them to press even involuntary manslaughter charges against Zimmerman. And no new evidence changed that, even as days and weeks passed.
Oh but new evidence was found. They got their chance to analyze the recordings, examine any physical evidence they didn't screw up, and continue to interrogate witnesses. For one thing, analysis of the recordings suggest that Zimmerman is a liar, and the boy he executed is the one who was calling for help. Furthermore, the fact that the police took their time in arresting Zimmerman shows that they either realized their folly or were simply being careful about to make sure they have enough evidence to make an arrest. The fact it took a while is not a defense.
Quote:
And just to show that skin color was not a factor, watch this vireo:
A completely unrelated event. Irrelevant to this case. I will not discuss anything unrelated.
Oh but new evidence was found. They got their chance to analyze the recordings, examine any physical evidence they didn't screw up, and continue to interrogate witnesses. For one thing, analysis of the recordings suggest that Zimmerman is a liar, and the boy he executed is the one who was calling for help. Furthermore, the fact that the police took their time in arresting Zimmerman shows that they either realized their folly or were simply being careful about to make sure they have enough evidence to make an arrest. The fact it took a while is not a defense.
Voice recognition is not infallible. It is about as accurate as a polygraph when a voice is disguised by normal means. I'll go into more detail following this article:
Article on Voice Analysis Technology in this case
Two experts in the field of forensic voice identification, Tom Owen and Ed Primeau, were hired by the Orlando Sentinel to review George Zimmerman’s call to police along with the 911 calls right before the shooting.
They both decided the voice screaming for help on the 911 calls was not George Zimmerman, and each expert arrived at that conclusion by independent methods.
Tom Owen is mentioned first in the article. He’s described as a forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services, LLC.
Let’s take a closer look at the process he used.
Quote:
After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman’s voice to the 911 call screams.
“I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else,” Owen says.
The software compared that audio to Zimmerman’s voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he’d expect higher than 90 percent.
“As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman,” Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon’s, because he didn’t have a sample of the teen’s voice to compare.
That raises some concerns. Tom Owen apparently compared Zimmerman’s normal speaking voice on a dispatch call, with high-pitched, terrified screaming that was recorded in the background of later 911 calls.
I was pretty stunned that he could be so sure. After all, the computer program is looking for similarities in the vocal patterns. How many can it possibly find when pattern A is completely normal, laid back speech and pattern B is hysterical screaming?
I wanted to investigate this a bit further and looked into downloading the software Tom Owen used.
But this proved to be extremely difficult, a license for the software costs nearly $5,000.
That’s a pretty hefty price to pay to test this software out…
After a few more minutes of research, I found out that the Easy Voice Biometrics web domain is actually owned by Tom Owen himself.
So what Tom Owen is actually doing here, is using his own home-grown software to attempt to determine the similarities in speech markers between two radically different types of voice patterns and claiming that it is accurate “beyond scientific certainty.”
Beyond scientific certainty is a pretty strong statement.
There doesn’t seem to be any disclosure in the Orlando Sentinel article that Tom Owen owns EasyVoiceBiometrics.com, nor any that he was using his own software package to do the analysis.
I’m not sure whether the Orlando Sentinel author realizes it, but that could easily be construed as a conflict of interest, particularly when the software is currently being sold for $5,000 per license. There’s an extremely transparent profit motive for Tom Owen to promote his product in any way that he can, especially at that price.
Since Tom Owen has staked his reputation on this, and has said point-blank that this software is so accurate that he knows “with reasonable scientific certainty” that it’s not Zimmerman on the 911 calls, the software must at least be extremely thoroughly tested, right?
I emailed Mr. Owen to double-check.
Doesn’t sound reassuring, does it?
It also says, on Easy Voice Biometric’s own web site, that the software is less than a month old.
This is especially strange, because the Orlando Sentinel article says:
Quote:
As recently as January, Owen used the same technology to identify accused murderer Sheila Davalloo in a 911 call made almost a decade ago.
How could Owen have been using the same technology in that case when the web site says the software was only released on March 7th, 2012
Since Owen referred me to TracerTek.com, I checked out that site as well.
TracerTek.com and EasyVoiceBiometrics.com appear to be using the same web site template, just with different information filled in.
It appears Jeff Klinedinst is involved with both. He is listed as the VP of Marketing on TracerTek and he did the YouTube demo videos for Easy Voice Biometrics.
Here’s a demo video Jeff put together for Easy Voice Biometrics.
The software appears to work fine if someone alters their voice slightly, or if there is light music playing in the background.
But there certainly isn’t anything in the demos about Easy Voice Biometrics offering “reasonable scientific certainty” when someone is screaming in panic on the background of a 911 call.
So where exactly is this “scientific certainty” coming from?
The second expert, Ed Primeau, doesn’t “believe” in Biometric Analysis, but doesn’t say why.
Quote:
Not all experts rely on biometrics. Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, is not a believer in the technology’s use in courtroom settings.
Ed simply listened to the recordings. Then he decided the noises were Trayvon Martin because of the “tone of the voice” while reading Mother Jones.
Quote:
“I believe that’s Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt,” Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. “That’s a young man screaming.”
Nevermind that there was an eyewitness to the fight who clearly states it was George Zimmerman yelling out for help. Or that Zimmerman is cited in the original police report as saying he was yelling for help. Or that the yells much more accurately portray someone who is screaming during an assault, rather than someone begging for their life at gunpoint.
Both Primeau and Owen report that they are credentialed by the American College Forensic Examiners Institute.
Sadly, it turns out there is an entire suite of these “American Forensic Board” sites, on almost any topic you can think of, which all seem to be ran by the same person, a gentleman named Dr. O’Block who claims to have nearly a dozen degrees himself.
Once again, most of these sites use the same basic template and only change cursory details, making it difficult to gauge how legitimate the boards are, if at all.
Tom Owen also lists things like this:
Quote:
Instructor “New York Institute for Forensic Audio” 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,2006, 2007
As prestigious as the “New York Institute for Forensic Audio” sounds, there is no such brick and mortar institute. It is actually a “division” of Owen Investigations, LLC. Tom Owen is basically claiming he was an instructor at his own unaccredited university.
I’m sure we’ll hear more about this in the upcoming weeks, since both of these “experts” have sparked a lot of controversy with their statements and placed their reputations on the line.
Now, when I was in High School I happened to study biometrics and much of what was true then is still true now:
Here are the problems. Zimmerman was yelling for help, he was getting beaten up and he was panicked and scared. Those facts alone can make the voice be disguised and come back a false-negative. If you throw in physical blows to the face, belly, or groin that can really throw it off. Also a hit to the throat will almost guarantee a failure to match. The vocal cords are the most important part of the body for this software, so a hit to that spot will make ones voice much less recognizable by the software.
Also, the screams were background noise and there was a lot of interference, making one more obstacle when they tried to isolate just the screams. There may have been leftover interferance not audible to the human ear and that can throw the results off a bit too. In short, all those things made me feel certain that if they used the software it wouldn't match even before the release of these results. By the way, a 48% match is very high, it's not scientifically conclusive, but if you take two random people off the street and compare there voices with voice recpgnition software, more often you'd be less then a 20% match, so really under the circumstances a 48% match is quite impressive. I take that 48% match, combined with all the reasons cited above, to be proof that there is a high probability that it is Zimmermans voice, and that is corroborated by John's testimony.
Oh yeah, I forgot one more thing. Cell phones compress the voice signal so much that much information is lost. Meaning comparing Zimmermans voice when he was on a cell phone can be yet one more factor that can throw off the results of a a voice analysis.
The case against George Zimmerman is turning into another Duke Lacrosse Hoax. I pray that everyone will see the light and stop letting their emotions overtake logic.again.
The depiction of Corey as one of the state's toughest prosecutors is likely welcome news to those who believe George Zimmerman should be charged. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, says he shot Martin in self-defense February 26.
Not me. I think Zimmerman should be charged but there is nothing worse than an overzealous prosecutor coupled with an emotionally charged and politically sensitive case. This trial should be a truth-seeking process, and such factors easily detract from that.
Definitely agree.
While getting the media involved can be a great way to shine the light on social issues, for the particular instances involved it can prove to be a huge obstacle to justice because public pressure might not, and likely will not, coincide with the factual evidence.
Once we desire to see someone's hind on a platter, in a practical sense it no longer matters why or even if it's truly justified. neutral
That being said, I believe that Zimmerman should be charged, but I think he should have a fair shot.
300
300
250
